Dec 3, 2012 7:00pm EST
it often doesn't work out that way. in fact from kennedy to reagan to clinton to w. bush lower tax rates frequently increased tax revenues, particularly at the upper end of the income stream. so here now to discuss this we have cnbc contributor keith boykin a former clinton white house aide and forbes media chairman steve forbes author of freedom manifesto, why free markets are moral and big government is not. love that. hey steve and keith. keith boykin i'll give you a little supply side. you'll hate this. this couples from the irs. the irs is going to use the bush cut, the dreaded bush tax cuts. the richest 1% paid $84 billion inflation adjusted dollars more between 2000 and 2007. that's a rise of 23%. in other words, their tax rates went down. and their tax revenues went up. now, isn't mr. obama making a mistake? >> well, the rich are paying more in taxes because the rich are disproportionately receiving most of the income in this country. the reality, larry, is that in my lifetime we've actually only raised income tax rates three times. once in 1969 to pay for the vietnam war. once i
Dec 5, 2012 9:00am PST
their hands on the list itself. and a quick note on hillary clinton, a new abc news "washington post" poll shows if she decides to run for president in 2016, she's already got a leg up. 57% of people say they would support her. not a bad start. we're back after the break. stay with us. let's rock and roll. there is so much going on that every day presents another exciting issue. from financial regulation, iran getting a nuclear bomb, civil war in syria, fraud on wall street, destruction of medicare and medicaid. there are real issues here. having been a governor, i know that trade-offs are tough. things everyday exploding around the world that leave no shortage for exciting conversations. i want our viewer to understand why things have happened. at the end of the show, you know what has happened, why its happened and more importantly, what's going to happen tomorrow. rich, chewy caramel rolled up in smooth milk chocolate. don't forget about that payroll meeting. rolo.get your smooth on. also in minis. at cepacol we've heard people are going to extremes to relieve
Dec 3, 2012 10:00am PST
." i am making kelly. earlier today, secretary of state clinton publicly board bashar al-assad's regime. this comes after terrible violence of syria this weekend. this is video received on saturday. small towns being bombarded, sending innocent families and women and small children once again running for their lives. a short time ago, the united nations announced it is withdrawing all nonessential personnel from the country. as the possible threat of chemical warfare now looms. look at these families. look at this. along with an active chemical weapons program, syria has ballistic weapons program with deadly gas. they have vast amounts of nerve agents and finite, all decide to cause fetal death. this from the white house moments ago. >> is the opposition makes teaching expenses, the bashar escalationgime, we have been of weapons used against the syrian people. as the president has said, and hughes were proliferation by the syrian regime would cross a red line for the united states. megyn: joining me now is ambassador john bolton, a former ambassador to the united nations and the fox new
Dec 4, 2012 3:00pm PST
? >> actually, california voted for clinton before pete wilson got involved in the debate over whether illegal immigrants ought to have welfare benefits. democrat is a democratic state because it's state of immigrants for the reasons that charles mentioned. what is missing is not all immigrants are the same. many latin american countries send us immigrants that go on welfare. but does the united states need new numbers of the low skilled immigrants in a post industrial economy? is that good for the united states? it's mindless to say all immigrants are good. they are not. some are, some aren't. like all days are good. some days are good, some days aren't. we need and the republican party ought to be courageous enough to draw a distinction between people who add to the sum total of the american economy, buy in the culture, who improve the country and those who don't. there is a difference. >> bret: where is the screen? >> well, the screen begins with a conversation about outcomes. why is it that immigrants with certain countries have not thrived and immigrants from other countries have thrived?